Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

Anyone can get it off of a torrent. That's bad enough already. They aren't going after Postal 2 only. They also happen to be going after MadWorld, which to me just strikes me as fucking retarded. It seems as though they're only just going after the most violent looking games.

It's speculation of the worst case, but considering that's a scenereo mentioned on the first page of this article, it's not an uncommon speculation. And no, the ESRB does not, as far as I know, have an equivilant to PEGI 16+. Yet. Of course, you can argue that M is the equivilant to 16+ and AO is equivilant to 18+, but considering AO is pretty much the same as if Germany refused a rating on it, it's a poor arguement.

Ironically, AO is also (currently) the only ESRB rating AFAIK that is legally binding. Hence the aforementioned worst case if California gets to legally bind the M rating as well.

No ESRB rating, from "E" to "AO," is legally binding. A wholly private regulatory scheme cannot, as a matter of law, be legislatively granted the force of a public law. To do so is unconstitutional because it effectively replaces the judgment of elected legislators with the judgment of some private entity who is in no way beholden to the electorate. You can call this some sorta Tea Party argument, if you'd like, but to me, at least, it makes perfect sense.

VondeVon:I don't understand why there's such a big fuss. Can't they just say that games with 'obscene violence' are R-rated (Or whatever the American equivalent is) and can only be purchased by adults upon presentation of a driver's license or proof of age card? It works for cigarettes and alcohol. No major restructuring would be necessary on anyone's behalf.

What am I missing?

This isn't really about minors playing games. There's a much bigger picture here. This has to do with Games First Amendment rights, i.e. are they protected by freedom of speech?

Imagine what would happen if these laws pass. First of all, there will have to be strict definitions of what is and isn't acceptable. Then to complicate things more, these laws will be defined at the state level, meaning that you could have very different standards to follow when making a game. That severely narrows what a designer can do. Games with violence (and lets face it, there are a lot) become riskier to make. That could shake the whole industry, and set the whole medium back a generation. They would be regulated by people that don't know and don't care about games.

The biggest insult though, is that this isn't even a question for other media. The Godfather and The Great Gatsby both depict murder and other immoral behavior, but they're both considered great pieces art. But violence in a video game? That's not acceptable

Actually, the Supreme Court decided that Motion Pictures were protected under the First Amendment, as they served as a vehicle to effectively carry an idea, in 1952. You see, it's not that no one has asked that question about movies, it's just that the answer has long been decided. Now it's Video Games turn. And while you are correct about those laws being decided at a state level you don't take into account that local government could also impose censorship laws. Which would be a whole different kind of hell. However, that should be irrelevant since, more than likely, there is no way that games won't be held as protected by the First Amendment. Which would render governmental censorship boards impossible.

I wouldn't be surprised to see any tests for deciding if something is too violent, though. The ESRB's self-regulation might need to be stepped up and education of Joe Blow Parent is a must.

Jhereg42:make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Exactly, and well also that we as gamers sort of don't always show that we are as intelligent and normal and behaved just like anyone else which hinders peoples opinion of us. not saying all of us are hooligans but those who are have a bigger impact than those of us who aren't.

Unfortunately that's the case in every demographic. Where people are judged by one bad example out of 100 otherwise good examples. The nature of the news medium is to be sensational and outrageous to attract attention.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. Nobody thinks that it's going to lead to big brother and doublespeak in ten years. But this is missing the point. Some people are looking at this law and saying "what's the harm?" but you can't make law just on the basis of "why not?" There has to be good reason, justification, and logic behind your decision to restrict anything, and as it stands there is very little in play here. Specifically, they are trying to say that video games AND ONLY VIDEO GAMES are harmful enough to warrant censorship. That's just ridiculous. No study says that. What some studies say is that violent video games can do harm to minors, but not one says that movies, books, etc... do not do the same thing. Even if video games do more damage then these others, which hasn't been shown, it's still silly to regulate one and not the others. It's bad legislation, period.

And then there's the matter of what message this sends about games. Games aren't like movies and books. Games hurt kids! While this law may not restrict much, it could lead to more. Once you have a decision from the SUPREME COURT that says video games are okay to regulate, you will see, gradually, stricter and stricter attempts at controlling them. And even if the currently proposed $1000 dollar fine isn't enough to make the big retailers take them off shelves, once you declare that regulation is okay there's no guarantee that this will be the worst restriction we see. It has the potential to get harsher, and it probably will. How much harsher is a question of the power of the groups that want to censor games and how much legislative support they can drum up, but let's put it this way: they've managed to get at least ten states to try and restrict game sales already, and this is without the Supreme Court having said that it's okay to do it.

As to the suggestion that it has worked alright in other countries, without big retailers limiting their stock on these games: most other countries aren't the US. I seriously doubt that any other country has such a strong interest group presence arrayed against video games. The reason things may be different here will be that we have dozens of parents groups, religious organizations, ect... who legitimately do want games to be censored. Even then, I'm sure other countries have their fair share of these groups, but they likely don't have the sort of legislative clout that they do in the US. These groups are the driving force behind laws that restrict games, and if emboldened by a victory, there's really no telling how far they're willing to push this.

Again, refer to the first paragraph here. "Why not?" is not justification for legislation restricting free speech, even if only doing so in a very small way. Unless it can be shown that the decision to single games out is rational, and not being done simply because they know they can't win against other mediums, this law has no place on the books.

ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.

The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

I live in the UK, and I once worked for a store called Argos. When people were buying video games or movies that were rated 18 or 15, I always had to point it out to the customer, even if they were obviously over the age, just to let them know. Why can't that be the law? That way, an ignorant parent buying a rated R game for their child will know it's unsuitable before they buy it. Then it's the parent's decision to buy the game.

I fail to see the issue here. All California is attempting to do is put legal weight behind a classification system that already exists. We've had a similar situation here in the UK with the BBFC classifications (with PEGI supposedly taking over at some point in the near future). While there were certainly teething problems, British game development is hardly stifled by a climate of censorship.

As for: "major game retailers," having "to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games," that's exactly the sort of shrill exaggeration that polarizes the debate! At most, games retailers would need to re-train their staff to ask for ID when selling an M rated game, something that could be achieved in a single orientation day!

Kratenser:ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

actualty our old game review board (the BBFC) was a government body. it did a pretty decent job until it was replaced by Pegi(damn you EU!).they banned 2 games in the last 10 years and one of those was Guess what! Postal 2!

its illegal here to sell 18 games to under 18's the other ones are guidelines for parents.

All i still see is the ghettoisation of gaming compared to every other media. This would not have got anywhere near the supreme court if it was about films, a medoum which depicts FAR more disturbing and violent/sexual things than games EVER have. Hopefully somonw might realise this and restore a little sanity becuase the thrust of the argument STILL seems to be "But games are evil!"

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them..."

A simple solution here parents, "DON'T. BUY. IT!" Your two year old child should have those shitty v-tech video games they make, not the next Call of Duty and Halo games. Are they so dumb and so uncaring they'll just pick up a game that is obviously not meant for kids and just toss it at their child's feet? "That'll keep you quiet for a while, welfare check." God, its shit like that that really makes me wish none of this generation ever became a parent and the human race would evolve into some sort of smart, super being.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

acosn:ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.

The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

How is the ESRB's rating system for all intents legally binding? It's a completely voluntary system. If a store wants to sell you a game despite the fact that you're not old enough to buy it, there's no law that says they can't and no legal ramifications if they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger make a fairly decent living off of pretending to kill people? A bit of a moot point I know considering he was an adult at the time...except didn't he also star in video games aimed at children where you killed people?

I live in Germany and we had that sort of "censorship" for years... given we have it for movies, books, etc as well but yeah...

basically any game that gets an 18+(your M) rating MUST not be sold to minors... the laws are pretty strict and you get your ID checked in stores when buying such games...

It's not really a problem for the industry though... we have GameStop and WalMart as well and they still sell the games... they just check your ID. I couldn't think of a single store that doesn't sell the full plethora of games, other than the ones that are outright BANNED in GER of course like postal 2. ;)

I do sympathize with the freedom of speech issue... but I also strongly believe in laws to protect kids from stuff that might hurt them in their development...

You might think that germany is super strict and the laws are dumb... then again you can buy alcohol starting at 16 here and 21 as the "alcohol age" weirds me out f.e. ;)

so yeah... booh for censorship! but I don't think it'll stop big stores from selling them... there's too much money in games.

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

whaleswiththumbs:Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

I don't think he "remembers" it. I think California brought it to the Court's attention and he's decided to latch on to it.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

Anyone can get it off of a torrent. That's bad enough already. They aren't going after Postal 2 only. They also happen to be going after MadWorld, which to me just strikes me as fucking retarded. It seems as though they're only just going after the most violent looking games.

even if the law passes, ANYONE will still be able to get it off a torrent. that isn't even anywhere near the scope of the law being proposed.

But they always go back to the standard "Urinate on a teenage girl and then set her on fire", like that is the norm in gaming. We all know what that game is, and it's such a small blip that it shouldn't be an issue anymore.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

Most notably, they're talking about Postal 2, a First Person Shooter released in 2003. It would not even be any part of the argument except it was popularized with the release of Uwe Boll's movie Postal.

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Sadly, that game does exist, and it was briefly marketed. It even has a hollywood movie based on it.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

Scrumpmonkey:All i still see is the ghettoisation of gaming compared to every other media. This would not have got anywhere near the supreme court if it was about films, a medoum which depicts FAR more disturbing and violent/sexual things than games EVER have. Hopefully somonw might realise this and restore a little sanity becuase the thrust of the argument STILL seems to be "But games are evil!"

This is old hat for movies, sir. Motion Pictures were included under the First Amendment by Joseph Burstyn inc. v. Wilson in 1952. In a way this is video games coming of age ceremony. It's almost certainly about to be recognized as a form of free speech protected by the constitution. Every new medium will go through this phase.

BehattedWanderer:Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.

Alito should just leave the originalism to Scalia, the biggest proponent of originalism to ever grace the Court. I'm not so sure Alito's got the firmest grip on the concept. But maybe Scalia and Thomas won't let him in the clubhouse unless he brings it up every now and then.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

Does it truly become an argument the BNP would make without gratuitously throwing in something about how the jobs of white, God-fearing Britons are being stolen by black and brown immigrants who pray to pagan gods and smell of curry and other assorted spices?

newdarkcloud:The thing is, these safeguards are already in place. The law itself is redundant and punishes retailers for no good reason. This case will determine just how "protected" games are as free speech and could set a dangerous president for future laws.

I definitely agree that the law shouldn't be passed. The idea that games should be exempt from First Amendment protection is absurd and the quotes in this article from the some of the justices were ridiculous (Wtf game has "people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them" and how is that representative of a game like Mass Effect?). As I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this law could snowball into something much worse. I'm just saying that it's not the end if this particular law passes. I mean, porn is still big business, even though there's similar restrictions on it. Really, I'm just trying to make myself and others feel better about it, so we're not all doom and gloom about the fate of the entire industry.

On this we are agreed. While I do not believe it will be the end, this law would cause the medium as a whole to either slow down or stagnate.

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Honestly, I REALLY wish someone called him out on that, the look on his face would've been priceless.

Shouldn't that be considered falsified evidence/illegal? If it does exist I find it quite disturbing that the entirety of the Escapist- nay- EVERY SINGLE GAMING BOARD I'VE BEEN ON has NEVER come across such a game.

Might be a little off-topic, but why do you guys hate postal 2? It's not such a bad game. And it certainly isn't as bad as some movies, like Saw and it's sequels(and definitely not as boring). It's true that you can make someone suck your .... at gunpoint, pee in his/her mouth (most of them vomit at this point), cut off their head, watch the stream of vomit fly, kick the head and play fetch with it with a dog. But it isn't realistic, it's silly. It may not be in good taste, but it still has some value. And it's not the most important part of Postal 2. Have any of you seen the levels of the game? They are filled with satire and poke fun at a lot of stereotypes. Some examples: protesters chanting "Save a tree, burn a book" then burning down a library, other protesters chanting "Games are bad, they make you mad" before whipping out guns and shovels and going on a rampage (it sounds quite funny when you think of the supporters of this law), the gunfight between Muslim terrorists and catholic priests, the redneck rapists, the police brutality ("Get together in a flammable place"). I think that Postal 2 has some artistic merit after all...

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

Does it truly become an argument the BNP would make without gratuitously throwing in something about how the jobs of white, God-fearing Britons are being stolen by black and brown immigrants who pray to pagan gods and smell of curry and other assorted spices?

Heh. There is a reason why I said Tea Party rather than the BNP, you know. BNP is far more likely to go on about race, while the Tea Party would be more likely to go about government. But, that's largely beside the point of this thread, so I'll leave it.

Scrumpmonkey:All i still see is the ghettoisation of gaming compared to every other media. This would not have got anywhere near the supreme court if it was about films, a medoum which depicts FAR more disturbing and violent/sexual things than games EVER have. Hopefully somonw might realise this and restore a little sanity becuase the thrust of the argument STILL seems to be "But games are evil!"

This is old hat for movies, sir. Motion Pictures were included under the First Amendment by Joseph Burstyn inc. v. Wilson in 1952. In a way this is video games coming of age ceremony. It's almost certainly about to be recognized as a form of free speech protected by the constitution. Every new medium will go through this phase.

Oh i know this, don't get me started on the retarded attitute to other media/ 'youth' phenomenons, but i guess i was wrong to have hoped america had moved on since 1952.

You know what really annoys me is these people seem to think games like Postal 2 are everywhere, games which, most likely, will receive an AO rating from the ESRB which won't be stocked anyway. That's my biggest issue. There are plenty of M-rated games which are (at least in my opinion) not obscene at all, and it pains me to think that, because of a few less-than-informed people, those games are being thrown together with the "obscene" games in the context of this law.

I know I'm preaching to the choir but I like to think my opinions are informed and reasonable anyway.

AC10:How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

As a parent who is an avid fan of the medium, I make it a point to keep my copies of M rated games put away and play them when my child is asleep. When he is around and he wants to play with his dad, I let him play drums on Lego Rock Band or we play some more rated E games. To me, it's common sense. To most of those who were born just 5 years before me, it's a mystery.

We have to accept that it is those people, around age 40 to 60, that are in charge of the country at the moment. Those people, who would never even look at the true experience behind a solid M rated game like Mass Effect or Bioshock, are just more prone to seeing a story about a game like Postal or Rape Lay and make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Even if we lose, in 5 to 10 years when a more informed generation comes to power these restrictions can be changed. It's just a matter of having people who actually care in the right place.

The problem of this, of course, is why would you want to spent all that money changing a law to spend money changing it back in 5 years

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them..."